Ethics of Fur

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
severus68 said:
If animals were stones with no feelings, innate things, then there is nothing to discuss. They are sentient beings. Their emotions do come into it.

With regard to your earlier post, have you never kept a pet or observed an animal?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have several pets right now. And my pets do not have emotions. They have instincts. They want food, shelter and water. They don’t love me, although I have often said that I love them. They don’t love each other, either. Just callin’ it as I see it…
 
JoeJetson said:
A sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skilled physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. There is no fair play in hunting. The playing field is tipped and skewed in the favor of the guy with the artificial power. Now if you give a gun to a deer, teach him how to use it, sound the gong, and declare that the one still standing is the winner with this match of equal advantage, then you have a sport. What you have now, masquerading as a sport is just abuse of power and cruelty. Men who feel small and inadequate should just get a prescription of viagra and quit bullying the animals under the guise of conservation or whatever other excuse they are using.
Click to expand...
First of all, the website you are posting is not exactly an “objective” site.

Secondly, have you ever been hunting? I have. Not “canned” hunting–I agree with you that is wrong. And so would any real hunter because in a canned hunt, you pay your money and they let an animal that has been raised by human beings and is used to human beings out of a cage so the hunter who paid the money can shoot it. And it doesn’t run away from the hunter, becaue it has learned not to be afraid of human beings, so it is a “sitting duck.”

In real hunting, believe me, there is fair play. According to your theory, the “playing field” was tipped and skewed to the “guy with the artificial power” once human beings started using weapons. However, many times, in real hunting, the hunter can’t even find an animal in the wild, let alone kill it.
 
mmsiciliana said:
In this country, many people have anthropomorphized animals due to movies like Bambi. In real life, animals are not like that. Look at the guy who went up to Alaska to be with his “friends,” the Grizzly bears.
Animals do feel pain, but they are incapable of using reason to fear pain and death. If an animal has fear issues, they are the same thing as Pavlov’s dogs’ responses to the bell–a learned response to a certain critera that has produced the same result time after time.
It is morally right to raise animals for their fur according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2417 specifically says animals can be used for clothing. BUT it would not be right to abuse those animals. They need proper food, water, bedding, space, etc., all of which it is also to the advantage of the farmer to provide because he will end up with a better quality pelt in the end. It is not to the advantage of a farmer to mistreat or cause premature death in his animals by not taking proper care of them.
By the way, many times, the love for animals can take away from the love we should have for other human beings. It’s sort of like the Dulia/Hyperdulia veneration we should have for Mary vs the other saints. We can “love” our pets, but we are commanded by Our Lord to love one another and to take care of those who are in need of food, water, shelter, clothing etc. as if they were Our Lord himself.
Click to expand...
It is really too simplistic to say that anyone who loves animals andthink they have emotions do so because of movies. You said in an earlier post that animals do not know fear and appehension, now you say they do not use reason to feel fear and apprehension. So which is it please?

I would be interested to know the price of a full length fur coat from the farm you were brought up in Are the furs given to the poor to clothe them? I am not trying to be rude but this thread is about the ethics of fur and you have bought up the need to, inter alia, clothe the needy. It is good to clothe the needy but what has that to do with the use of fur?
 
athansor said:
There’s a big difference I think between wanting to avoid causing needless suffering and holding animals on a high pedestal.

It’s like when I tell people I’m vegan, and they say, well, why do you care more about animals than people (or why don’t you care more about unborn babies?)?

Being vegan doesn’t interfere with my ability to work for pro-life causes, in fact, in some ways it reinforces it. For most people, avoiding buying fur, not hunting, not eating meat, not supporting dog fighting, etc., doesn’t prevent them from caring for other human, and doesn’t draw them away from God. I don’t understand why some people seem to be so threatened by or bothered by someone else’s choice to try to minimize animal suffering.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on vaccinating your children, or people in general, against disease with vaccines that have been grown in chicken eggs?
 
mmsiciliana said:
Yes, I have several pets right now. And my pets do not have emotions. They have instincts. They want food, shelter and water. They don’t love me, although I have often said that I love them. They don’t love each other, either. Just callin’ it as I see it…
Click to expand...
We have to agree to disagree then as I see their love. My dogs are happy to see me with or wihout food. I have watche heplessly while my dog pined away when her companion died. She died withn a month.I have seen crows feeedand protect an injured crow.
 
Re: Ethics of Fur
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpp
I wear leather gloves driving gloves (for a disability) and have deer-skin ski gloves.

Elise wrote: But no fur?

Leather is fur with the hair rubbed off.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4elise
If we do not NEED fur (we have other means to keep warm) - then we are causing animals to die needlessly - and contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church.

Vz71 wrote: Utilizing that logic, one could readily conclude that to follow Catholic teaching, one must vegan.

Exactly. I just returned from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. All of the food is local and very fresh, just like during the time of Jesus. They eat a lot of ground of chickpeas in various forms and a lot of vegetables. But Jesus ate the Passover meal, which was commanded, by God, to include lamb. If it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for me.
 
Originally Posted by vz71
And he ate lamb.

Severus68 wrote: You said Jesus was a devout Jew. I refuted that. If you think I am wrong about that please say so and give your reasons. Thank you.

The command to eat lamb at the Passover Supper came directly from God. The commands that Jesus broke came from man’s interpretations of the laws of God. Jesus would never disobey a direct command from God because Jesus is God.
 
severus68 said:
It is really too simplistic to say that anyone who loves animals andthink they have emotions do so because of movies. You said in an earlier post that animals do not know fear and appehension, now you say they do not use reason to feel fear and apprehension. So which is it please?

I would be interested to know the price of a full length fur coat from the farm you were brought up in Are the furs given to the poor to clothe them? I am not trying to be rude but this thread is about the ethics of fur and you have bought up the need to, inter alia, clothe the needy. It is good to clothe the needy but what has that to do with the use of fur?
Click to expand...
What is the difference between saying that animals do not know fear and apprehension as oppsed to saying they do not use reason to feel fear and apprehension? To know something, you have to use reason.

Secondly, the price of a full length coat from the farm I was brought up on is the “bread and butter”, so to speak, that gave my parents the ability to feed, shelter, clothe their children, and to give to the poor in the various ways they have done all their lives. Among other things, my parents have monetarily supported pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. They have provided transportation to people who could not otherwise afford it. The fact that they make a living from something that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church is moral, has given them the means to take care of others as Jesus said, from feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked, etc.
 
severus68 said:
I have never said animals are the same ashuman beings. We do howeverhave a connecton with animals.We too have instincts and act on our instincts. if someone came towards me with a knife, my nstinct would be to run out of fear. A wild animal has instincts which are probably more honed than ours Animals feel fear and pain too.

With repect, I do not think I have an emotional connection with my pets, I know I do.
Click to expand...
You do not run from someone who comes towards you with a knife because of instinct. You run because you know that someone coming towards you with a knife could hurt you. A very young child who doesn’t know any better would not run from someone with a knife, because a very young child doesn’t know any better. On the other hand, a young animal will attempt to evade a predator because of instinct. Look at infant giraffes and gazelles, for instance. That is the difference between you and an animal.
 
I am an animal lover and have been appalled many times over each time i see videos of animal cruelty. I even refrain from eating meat if i can though i am not a vegetarian.

I do not consciously buy leather products, but recently i have been gifted with a second hand suede coat which i need. I do not come from a country with 4 seasons, but plan to travel and live in one. So this coat is really a ‘blessing’ in a way.

My question is:
Since this coat was given to me, and i do have a need for something to keep me warm without me spending money (which i do not have), would it be ethical to wear it?

At the back of my mind, this animal had already been sacrificed, why ‘waste’ it by throwing it out, or being ungrateful to the giver of the gift.

Any suggestions?
 
athansor said:
The Church teaches that we should treat animals with compassion, while noting that it is OK to consume animal products if necessary. mals is a good thing. QUOTE]

No, you are misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Catechism. The Church does not teach that it is OK to consume animal products “if necessary.” The Church specifically says in #2417, “It is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” Period. Nothing said about if it is “necessary” to do so.
However, in #2418, it says, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” Needlessly means if you are not using them for food or clothing, or medical care, etc. This teaching of the Catholic Church means that it is not right to abuse an animal.
Click to expand...
 
Brendan said:
Also, as I mentioned, if animals have reason, then they too are Moral actors, thus in need of Baptism and the forgiveness of their sins. Where exactly do you find such a command in the Bible?

BTW, St. Francis also called the Sun and Moon his brother and sister as well, that doesn’t mean that he accorded them the same rights as humans created in the Image of God.
Click to expand...
LOL! I work in a church office and just the other day someone called and asked me when we were going to have the “Baptism of the pets.” I told her that we had done pet blessings earlier in October…
 
athansor said:
In Genesis 1:29, God said,

“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it – I give every green plant for food.”
Click to expand...
In Genesis 9:3, God says, “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.”
 
Marfran said:
And as with all threads, we wander into related corollaries/issues/ and other considerations. I will re-post the OP. Maybe we can find our way back to it. We specifically raise captive animals for their fur and house and kill them inhumanely, for their fur exclusively. This is not for food. In the OP I also added the thought of the canned trophy hunt–as it too is not for food, and does not fulfill an authentic need, but rather a psychological one.
Click to expand...
You keep saying we kill them inhumanely. That is not true. Gassing them is not inhumane. Minks are not killed by electrocution.
 
Marfran said:
You see nothing wrong with killing an animal “inhumanely”. And you realize this is against Catholic teaching? The life of a captive “fur” animal is all about suffering. They are raised and killed inhumanely. Anal electrocution is outlawed in many areas because it ***is ***inhumane. Many European countries have completely outlawed “fur farming” in addition to just outlawing the “kill” method because the entire operation is inhumane.
Click to expand...
The life of a captive “fur” animal is NOT all about suffering. They are very well cared for with adequate food, shelter, water, etc. They are solitary animals in the wild, only coming together to breed and the female raises her young by herself.
 
Marfran said:
And what do workers do in other industries when technology changes or the item goes out of vogue? Anybody still making typewriters today? Cabbage Patch dolls? The workers follow the work and learn new trades and skills. Many European countries are currently outlawing fur farming because it is cruel. Meat is NOT used from these animals. All the money that people spend on luxury furs can easily be funneled into some other luxury item/business.
Click to expand...
Many European countries are discussing accepting Sharia laws, too. Europe is increasingly being seen as being post-Christian. Is that what you would like to see for America? Just because they “do” something in Europe doesn’t make it right…
 
4elise said:
Their brutality toward each other however is not something that is contrary to human dignity because in this case it is not humans that cause animals to suffer or die - and I’d guess it is seldom needless
Click to expand...
Not true. Many animals, for instance, eat their own young. There’s an example of needless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top